JAMILUR RAHMAN Vs. LAXMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application arises out of a receivership matter in a suit for dissolution of partnership and partition of its assets. The suit was instituted, as it appears from the number given to it, sometime in 1937. The preliminary decree in that suit was passed on 7-8-1940. As against the decree, First Appeal No. 140 of 1940 was brought to this Court, and that was finally disposed of on 20-3-1942. Thereafter, an application was made in the Court below for a final decree. This was completed by the Court below on 18-3-1955. Now, against that final decree an appeal has again been filed in this Court, which has been numbered as First Appeal No. 37 of 1955, and is still pending disposal.

(2.) In the meantime, a Receiver had been appointed at the trial, who had taken possession of all the properties owned by the partnership, in-cluding a distillery known as Manpur Distillery. It is said that the Receiver, while acting as such, had prepared a list showing therein the entire asset of Manpur Distillery. This had been done by him sometime between November, 1953 and January, 1954. Subsequently, with the sanction of the Court, the Receiver sold this Manpur Distillery by auction to one Rai Saheb Laxmi Narayan of Ranchi for a total consideration of Rs. 1,99,500/- under a registered deed of sale, dated 31-8-I954. This sale, it is said, was completed on the basis of the list which had already been prepared by the Receiver in between November, 1953 and January, 1954. In the present application before me, the purchaser, Rai Saheb Laxmi Narayan, has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1, and it was his application filed in the court below which has given rise to it. Rai Saheb Laxmi Narayan claims that, on the basis of the aforesaid sale made in his favour, he ultimately got possession over the distillery in between 14th September and 21st September, 1954; but in the course of this transfer all the articles that found mention in the list referred to above were not delivered to him. Accordingly, the purchaser, on 29-9-1955 made a petition in the court below which read as follows :

(3.) It may be stated here that Mr. Jamilur Rahman, the petitioner in this case, is one of the partners of the partnership giving rise to the suit for dissolution. The Court below has fixed the liability on Mr. Rahman on the grounds -- (1) that ther list referred to above had been prepared, amongst others, in his presence, (2) that the key of the Distillery had been given, as reported by the Receiver, by Mr. Rahman, and (3) that in certain petitions Mr. Rahman had asserted that it was he who was in possession of the Distillery. These facts have been challenged before me by Mr. Asghar Hussain, who appears on behalf of Mr. Rahman in this case.